John Wesley Thoughts On War- he recognises the control of the elite and the folly of their subjects

Link_________________JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12

I can see your point but the script this will add power to is the real monster we need to worry about, Mr Farell's feelings will sort themselves out be he good or not.

If and that’s if Mr Farrell continues with the exposure of the threat of inside job, false flags, as posing the biggest threat (of terrorism,) then by simple extension that goes to the top I.E. The people behind the so-called script you and all here are aware of.

And of course the so-called PTB will try to twist what he says and/or use it to some advantage, that’s a given with the way they operate.

Here are a few of those sinister shadowy characters connected with the rise of Wesley and the Methodist construct :

Quote
Thomas Garside, Esq. sen., was not only one of the earliest Methodists in this town, but also a class- leader, and was most active and influential in his endeavours to promote the cause which he had espoused. For many years he resided nearly opposite the chapel in Wagg-street, where he frequently entertained Mr. Wesley, Dr. Coke, and many of the first and second race of preachers.

Generous and large-hearted, his house was always open to the ministers of Christ, who never failed to find a welcome home under his hospitable roof. Following the advice of the apostle, and being “not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord,” he found “godliness to be profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.” He rose into easy circumstances, became a member of the Corporation, and was elected to the mayorship in 1792. Such was, the integrity and uprightness of his character that it won general esteem.

He was one in whom all could confide. He was a faithful member of the church, and ever manifested a laudable interest in the prosperity of Zion. After serving his generation for many years, his constitution, which was naturally strong, at length suddenly gave way, and after suffering severe pain with patient submission, he fell asleep in Jesus, on March 24th, 1798.

Hannah More's views and activities became the focus of the struggle between the evangelical wing of the Church of England (which looked to Sunday schools and similar activities as a way forward) and a more conservative wing that viewed such 'Methodist' activities as dangerous. As the Sunday school movement developed, and Methodists became more organized, the reaction grew in strength. Known as the 'Blagdon Controversy' the initial spark was a Monday night meeting for adults associated with the Sunday school established by, and associated with, Hannah and Martha More.

The session in question was, in essence, a prayer meeting at which people gave testimony. The local curate became deeply critical. Hannah More was accused of being Methodistic - and the situation became the subject of various letters to the press and more than 20 pamphlets over a period of four years (1800-1804). The temper of the debate rose with Hannah being represented, for example, as the founder of a sect. In the end More had to close the Blagdon school. The controversy had affected her health and she collapsed. Hopkins (1947: 198) comments that illnesses were Hannah's rest periods. 'She went into retreat from the world.... and believed that God sent her poor health to turn her toward Him'.

This continuing interest in, and commitment to, philanthropic activities has to be put in the context of the atmosphere of panic in the aftermath of the French Revolution.

John Newton is one of the most terrifying personalities of the second half of the eighteenth century. Newton remained one of the most desirable spiritual guides in London, and acted as personal religious instructor to several influential Evangelicals in the Capital including the Clapham sect abolitionists William Wilberforce and Hannah More.

Tony Farrell presents government as underpinned by Satanism, while omitting that which is underpinning to be private corporatism. I see no mention of possible Crown involvement here, are they moving for dissolution of the peoples Parliament?

The government are essentially taking orders from Adam Street or, the Corporate Crown, as opposed to Constitutional Crown.

Can we really afford dissolved Parliament with the corporations removing our entire tax revenue under contract?

We have 486 Billion tax revenue collection per annum in this country, we can sort this country out if we kill the corporations and place that revenue back into our economy, the contracts are gained at the expense of the taxpayer this needs to be addressed.

State Capture which is the term used for the capture of state by private corporate enterprises, is being facilitated by the Department for Works and Pensions itself having its head office in Adam Street.

Underpinning Transformational Government - the NLPG ten years on 26 November 2009, Park Plaza Victoria, London :

Lets Give John Newton a word himself as a mans words will often betray his character. Written following his repentance from his debauched, drunken murdering life. A man with the blood of many slaves on his hands and conscience

"Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me....
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see.

T'was Grace that taught...
my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear...
the hour I first believed.

Through many dangers, toils and snares...
we have already come.
T'was Grace that brought us safe thus far...
and Grace will lead us home.

The Lord has promised good to me...
His word my hope secures.
He will my shield and portion be...
as long as life endures.

Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
and mortal life shall cease,
I shall possess within the veil,
a life of joy and peace.

When we've been here ten thousand years...
bright shining as the sun.
We've no less days to sing God's praise...
then when we've first begun.

"Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me....
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see._________________JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12

The meaning of the hymn has certainly changed over the years. The words have been changed or added, verse have been added, it has been sung to many different tunes, and it has been put to serve ends that would make John Newton turn over in his grave. According to the Dictionary of American Hymnology, "Amazing Grace" appears in over a thousand hymnals in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Such incredibly wide dissemination invites analysis.

Ananysis :

As a writer / musician what stands out is the reality of the lengths the Evangelicals have gone to, and some.... to ensure the current toon is a serious piece of emotional wizardry, then a big fuss to shine the slave trading kinda light that was Newton as an ok geezer :

John Newton (1725-1807) was a converted slave trader who became a leader in the Evangelical Revival in Britain. Despite a godly upbringing, Newton's youth was marked by rebellion and debauchery. After a brief stint in the Royal Navy, he started a career in slave trading.

Yep, sounds like a good Evangelical to me and perhaps a little slight of hand going on when one grasps the energy of one of his pals :

In Olney, he met the poet William Cowper. Their friendship led to a spiritual collaboration that led to an important collection of hymns entitled the "Olney Hymnal."

Mmm I wonder....is it possible Newton set the backdrop for the entire music industry MO, nick everything you can...after you get the signature... and those who own the rights can do what the hell they want with it, like completely change it and rewrite the lyrics...

Looks like Newton's slave trading mindset continued ...but it was for Jesus!

The government are essentially taking orders from Adam Street or, the Corporate Crown, as opposed to Constitutional Crown.

Can we really afford dissolved Parliament with the corporations removing our entire tax revenue under contract?

We have 486 Billion tax revenue collection per annum in this country, we can sort this country out if we kill the corporations and place that revenue back into our economy, the contracts are gained at the expense of the taxpayer this needs to be addressed.

State Capture which is the term used for the capture of state by private corporate enterprises, is being facilitated by the Department for Works and Pensions itself having its head office in Adam Street.

You raise some of the most important topics Life (And omit parts that should be included in the sub topic of taxes)

So we all know the current system in its entirety is corrupt through and through.

So what system would you replace it with? When it's been shown you don't really know yourself and probably the vast majority of people will have their own opinions unless they take a really good look without preconceived opinions.

Andrew you are sounding rather vague with your fixation on taxes as though they are some sort of all out evil.

We pay taxes to have a body called the government administer the will of the collective people which gave us a pretty good country to live in when compared with other nations. Your fixation on all things Old Testament is rather more on the side of the Talmud Zionist/Christian morality than what is Christianity itself.

I have presented my thoughts on what needs to be done without requiring full on replacement of what we already have, remove the corporate control of our tax revenue by cancelling the outsourcing contractors. This would place the 486 billion tax take each year back in the hands of our civil system and employ British born people, something that cannot be done while the corporate and civil servants are lying their ass's off to cover the state capture, ergo they bring in and employ immigrants who know no different and keep their mouths shut.

We create a constitution based in the Christian ethic and place that upon the throne of England keeping all respective constitutional offices in place and back under oath.

Andrew you are sounding rather vague with your fixation on taxes as though they are some sort of all out evil.

They are and unlawful.

Quote:

We pay taxes to have a body called the government administer the will of the collective people which gave us a pretty good country to live in when compared with other nations. Your fixation on all things Old Testament is rather more on the side of the Talmud Zionist/Christian morality than what is Christianity itself.

A post above in this thread shows that taxes are wrong and always have been.

Quote:

We create a constitution based in the Christian ethic and place that upon the throne of England keeping all respective constitutional offices in place and back under oath.

We aready have that constitution/covenant/contract.

Quote:

This would place the 486 billion tax take each year back in the hands of our civil system and employ British born people, something that cannot be done while the corporate and civil servants are lying their ass's off to cover the state capture, ergo they bring in and employ immigrants who know no different and keep their mouths shut.

But you omit other forms of Usury and thus make it of no effect in and of its own.

Part quote:

Quote:

Old Testament is rather more on the side of the Talmud Zionist/Christian morality than what is Christianity itself.

Mark:
12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

I.e. the world does not belong to a despot Caesar (man who thinks he’s a god man) rather like the house of so-called lords/gods

It is within the constitution that there can be no royal interference with taxation, something my current case against the DWP brings into question as it is obvious it is the corporate crown which has made the situation today through signatures to contracts gained under misrepresentation in the first instant, leading to the unjust enrichment of the corporate at the expense of the taxpayer, see the Bank of England IMF, EU, GAAT, UN etc.

Usury is of course a Christian law on the charging of interest on money lending, it is not about taxation.

I think if we are to be realistic about our financial situation, then we need to be realistic as to what can be achieved without the total destruction of our system. I have no wish to shift this world back some 3000 years, so of course I deal in what can be achieved as opposed to what would be the fantasy of bygone ages leading to outright anarchy...

Usury is of course a Christian law on the charging of interest on money lending, it is not about taxation.

I think if we are to be realistic about our financial situation, then we need to be realistic as to what can be achieved without the total destruction of our system. I have no wish to shift this world back some 3000 years, so of course I deal in what can be achieved as opposed to what would be the fantasy of bygone ages leading to outright anarchy...

Usury is so much more than you claim (And most here know that,) and as you in your posts talk about what’s happening with children and schools and so on, here is an example:

Can you see how by changing “adding and/or diminishing from the Law” below ? How this, while seemingly benevolent is Usury by inadvertently turning the person into a commodity against their best interest (whilst it looks as though it benefits them) and also the fact that another reason that Law is as it is, is that it prevents incest in families/and society etc (which we know is a big problem in society) So whilst people think they are wise in changing it and to help the woman/child they have inadvertently taken much protection from her.

So cant you explain how you would set a pretty much failsafe protection (which this is when you take a proper look at the appropriate Torah/Law) of the problem of women/child, rape, incest, and child trafficking all in a failsafe way?

People need to seek the wisdom of the Law.

Quote:

Can you explain a passage in the Talmud that seems to say men can marry little girls?
Go Back
Adnan:New Comment Added
June 09, 2008

Dear Rabbi,

Salam alaikum

I am a Muslim, a Palestinian, whom, fell into the Zionist trap of hating ALL jews, when it is the Quran that tells me to do the EXACT OPPOSITE, and for that, i am deeply sorry.

What i would like to ask, is in regards to your Talmud. I go to a site that deals with politics and religion, and although i am Muslim, i defend Judaism because i like it more than Christianity, and because it makes more sense than Christianity....

Anyways, here is the Passage. I can almost gurantee its taken out of context, and thats why it is written the way it is, and so sends the message it sends, but i wanted to check with you anyways:

Now let's look at a Mishnah from Kethuboth 11a:

MISHNAH. WHEN A GROWN-UP MAN (7) HAS HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH (8 ) A LITTLE GIRL, (9) OR WHEN A SMALL BOY (10) HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A GROWN-UP WOMAN, OR [WHEN A GIRL WAS ACCIDENTALLY] INJURED BY A PIECE OF WOOD (11) ? [IN ALL THESE CASES] THEIR KETHUBAH IS TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ] ?

7. A man who was of age.
8. Lit., 'who came on'.
9. Less than three years old.
10. Less than nine years of age.
11. Lit., 'One who was injured by wood', as a result of which she injured the hymen.

? Rabbi Dr. Daiches

Can you explain? It doesn't say that men can marry girls under 3 years of age right? Their is something i am missing probably...right?

shalom alaikum

Dear Adnan,

Salam alaikum. The kethuba is the Jewish marriage contract. It states that in the event of divorce or death of the husband, the wife may collect a certain sum of money from the husband's property. The kethuba for a virgin is 200 zuz whereas for a non-virgin it is 100 zuz.

The Mishnah you quoted deals with a grown-up man marrying a grown-up woman, whose status as a virgin is in question. She has never had normal intercourse before, but her hymen has been broken due to a different event not classified as intercourse. Either she injured it on a piece of wood, or a man raped her when she was under three years old, or she had intercourse with a boy under nine years old. The Torah does not classify these last two acts as intercourse at all, so it is as if she injured the hymen on a piece of wood. Therefore the Mishnah rules that her Kethuba is 200 zuz like any other virgin.

I hope this clears it up for you, and thank you for defending Judaism.
“All the words of yesterday spoken, Have gone with the “yesterday,” my dear! Now it is time to speak new things...” Sufi Mawlana Jelaluddin.

Usury (play /ˈjuːʒəri/ is the practice of charging excessive, unreasonably high, and often illegal interest rates on loans.

Originally, when the charging of interest was still banned by Christian churches, usury simply meant the charging of interest at any rate (as well as charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change). In countries where the charging of interest became acceptable, the term came to be used for interest above the rate allowed by law. The term is largely derived from Christian religious principles; Riba is the corresponding Arabic term and ribbit is the Hebrew word.

The pivotal change in the English-speaking world seems to have come with the permission to charge interest on lent money[citation needed]: particularly the 1545 act "An Acte Agaynst Usurie" (37 H.viii 9) of King Henry VIII of England (see book references).

The First Council of Nicaea, in 325, forbade clergy from engaging in usury (canon 17). At the time, usury was interest of any kind, and the canon merely forbade the clergy to lend money on interest above 1 percent per month (12.7% APR). Later ecumenical councils applied this regulation to the laity.

Of course the complete demolition of Usury came after the death of the constitutional upholder of the Christian laws in England after the Civil War, Charles I, reformed and set as the new Christian ethic under the King James Bible and debt serfs called Calvin's boys, aka Englishmen... became the new Jesus programme, and into slave trading and all such insanity went the reformed Jesus.

The Church of England never stood a chance after the Puritan's got their paws in and perhaps even more telling is the fact the King James was also an attempt to cover the translations of the Lollards from the Latin into English...John of Gaunt had his head bent the correct way I feel, not bad for one of those crazy Plantagenets...well there had to be a couple of good ones...

_________________KEEP IT REAL

Last edited by Life on Sat Jul 23, 2011 4:01 pm; edited 1 time in total

That Law can be found/read in any copy of the KJV; Deuteronomy 22:13 – 20

But most do not see the wisdom of it, on how it would set a failsafe way of preventing women/child, rape, incest, and child sex trafficking.

I do hope you really do want to help women/children with this pretty much failsafe Law. It would have even in the case of “Hollie Greig” had people kept the Law and do remember all cases are different and have to be proved.

---------------------

Also please what Law (so-called) are you going to use in your said case. Is it about this below and if not what please (as we all know it is wrong this “corporate crown” etc) ?

So my question is:
what is it that roger found that linked Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 to the legal Fiction? What was it that bought him and his research to the conclusion that Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 was in fact NOW being used for something other than its original purpose?

-----------

RE: ROGER HAYES & THE "MISSING" PREAMBLE
aoija, thank you for giving this thread the attention it truly deserves.
Preamble
A clause at the beginning of a constitution or statute explaining the reasons for its enactment and the objectives it seeks to attain.
Generally a preamble is a declaration by the legislature of the reasons for the passage of the statute, and it aids in the interpretation of any ambiguities within the statute to which it is prefixed. It has been held, however, that a preamble is not an essential part of an act, and it neither enlarges nor confers powers. The above can be found here:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/preamble
pre•am•ble (pr m b l, pr - m -)
n.
1. A preliminary statement, especially the introduction to a formal document that serves to explain its purpose.
2. An introductory occurrence or fact; a preliminary.

The above can be found here:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/preamble
The purpose of the act as can be seen on the act today; is starts, An Act for Redresse....
Cestui Que Vie Act 1666
1666 CHAPTER 11 18 and 19 Cha 2
An Act for Redresse of Inconveniencies by want of Proofe of the Deceases of Persons beyond the Seas or absenting themselves, upon whose Lives Estates doe depend.

This above my friend is the preamble. The reason and the purpose roger mentions in his Edge Media interview.
Here is the original preamble. Read where it says; comment on this article. The only difference you may notice is; the name, Charles II, 1666 at the beginning of the paragraph, and further down you will see that the preamble can be read again and you will also see the missing (omitted) parts II and III.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report....0Que%20Vie
Roger calls this preamble “the purpose of the act”. And as you will see the definitions above say the same. So I am sure we can both agree that the preamble (purpose) can be seen in the act today as can be seen in the archive link above. But what one has to bear in mind here is that , a preamble is not an essential part of an act, and it neither enlarges nor confers powers, as is stated above.

So preamble (purpose) or no preamble (purpose) this still doesn’t get us from the ACT to the Legal Fiction. And with that said; there is absolutely nothing in the archive or the act as can be seen today, that mentions one has show “proof of life, FROM BIRTH to or within the FIRST SEVEN years of one’s BIRTH”!.

Where the hell did this statement come from? It is not anywhere in the WHOLE of the Statute! It wasn’t there in 1666 and it isn’t there today! Is it? Neither does it mention legal fiction or corporation.

The two parts that have been removed can still be seen in the archive too. They don’t reference the “seven years from birth up until your seventh year” neither.

Like I have stated earlier, the removal of part II does away with judge and jury for obvious reasons i.e. people in modern England would (with the exception of serious controversy) be able to prove whether or not they are the rightful owner or rightful heir to said estate, no matter what time of their lives they went missing.
There is more proof of identity available today in modern England as there was back in 1666. You can go into W.H. Smiths and buy a Will and Testement form of the shelf and have it witnessed by two of your neighbours.

Serious controversy would be when someone has killed the rightful heir and or an impostor might turn up to stake his claim unlawfully and some other says or knows different, therefore part II would no doubt be enacted.
I have made it simplified as you say because it is simple. Man goes missing .. he was due back months ago.... he hasn’t shown up for ages...next in line wants his rightful inheritance.... other man says you will have to wait seven years because we can’t prove he is dead and neither can you, at this moment in time he is only absent or absented himself unless you can prove he is actually dead (gone beyond the seas).

Or , in 1666 a ship is blown off course and ship is well overdue in port...it is assumed all crew are dead.... (gone beyond the seas) all asset’s of the crew including the owner of the ship (if he was on board) are taken into trust for seven years (just in case they be alive or dead) and low and behold seaman Peg Legg doeth indeed returneth from the beyond the seas within seven years of setting off from harbour.

So maybe you can now see why some of the missing parts aren’t essential to the act any longer. Redresse is much easier to come by in modern England. People go missing and do return “from the beyond seas”. Some people go ‘missing’ on purpose i.e. absent themselves, for insurance reasons i.e. fraud. The canoe man of Panama comes to mind; she got paid out in part see here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/14/ukcrime

There are cases of survivors being found weeks after planes have gone down into the sea. People are still go missing and turning up weeks, months and even years after going missing by just walking off, especially in cases of the elderly suffering with dementia. How many millionaires go missing and are found (most of them) dead?. The list of cases goes on. And of course we have Reginald Perinn.

So now, back on track (I hope) how does one connect or make the leap from a missing person’s act to legal fiction? Because the act as it stands on its own doesn’t show this. I also see you have posted some of the 1707 act but these give no indication to the legal fiction corporation.Government created or otherwise.

This part: “Reasons for passing this Act. Reversions, &c. expectant upon Determination of Life Estate, upon Affidavit of Belief of Death of Infant or other Tenant for Life as herein mentioned, and that such Death is concealed by Guardian, &c. may yearly move for and obtain an Order in Chancery for the Production of such Tenant for Life; and upon Refusal, &c. to produce such Tenant for Life, taken to be dead”

I’m sure you understand refers to an infant that is dead or been said to be dead by parent or guardian and goes on to say that the infant maybe being “concealed” by parent or guardian, fraud and for profit.This infant could be the rightful heir and not the parant or guardian. So again you will see that this dovetails with other parts of similar acts.

-------------------

ouija,
I can take it then from your long but really un-necessary post (as thorough as it appears to be) that you haven’t a clue as to how roger connects an English legislated Act of Parliament of 1666 to Court Cases [American] on Fictitious Names [legal fiction/s] or the legal fiction here in England.
Besides, this topic is concerned only with the research discovered in the ACT that led them to the Fictitious Corporation. and not the fiction per se. I am sorry you missed the point of the thread It would have saved you a lot of time i'm sure.

At least (I’m sure) that we can now agree that the “removed” preamble (reason) is in fact not removed. Can we? .......

Evangelical Christianity and Zionist Judaism are one and the same, it is they who operate under the Talmudic law, old school Christianity did not.

Fruits of all, is what is real, the fruits of the KJV is the banking hell leading to slaves under contract of all the people and nature, aka the world 2011

Also Life, please.

That Law can be found/read in any copy of the KJV; Deuteronomy 22:13 – 20

But most do not see the wisdom of it, on how it would set a failsafe way of preventing women/child, rape, incest, and child sex trafficking.

I do hope you really do want to help women/children with this pretty much failsafe Law. It would have even in the case of “Hollie Greig” had people kept the Law and do remember all cases are different and have to be proved.

---------------------

Also please what Law (so-called) are you going to use in your said case. Is it about this below and if not what please (as we all know it is wrong this “corporate crown” etc) ?

"Commercial Redemption and the Strawman/legal Fiction?"

Re:

Quote:

It is within the constitution that there can be no royal interference with taxation, something my current case against the DWP brings into question as it is obvious it is the corporate crown which has made the situation today through signatures to contracts gained under misrepresentation in the first instant, leading to the unjust enrichment of the corporate at the expense of the taxpayer, see the Bank of England IMF, EU, GAAT, UN etc.

During the events it was clearly shown that maladministration is not the case, the strategy was backed through all managerial levels right up to the DWP.

The DWP are attempting to remove the Jobcentre from the case by claiming the case is against the DWP only.

I am encouraged so far...

I see, so what they are basically saying is that the DWP (Social Security) is a privilege and not a right, unless you play ball with state employment (slavery) increasingly so because even the small businessperson, can’t compete against big corporate crown businesses; all part of the Usury problem.

In my area, Warwickshire (most likely nation wide or going that way) they are moving over to the "The Work Programme” [previously, New Deal.] A group of people I was with who were given a copy, read it, and one bloke said “Wow, it looks like the Marxist manifesto or the Fascist manifesto, same thing different words.” With smiles all around in acknowledgment.

Quote:

DWP Homepage - Department for Work and Pensions

Government department responsible for welfare and employment issues. Formerly the Department of Social Security (DSS) and Department for Education and ...

I know what I would/should do, take the corporate crown, to crown court with a jury and let the public know (with a rock solid defence that they can only pretend doesn’t exist, even by their own contract law and standards of the current judicial systems.)

---------------------------------

(edit)

I looked at the Roger Hayes case (only a little, don’t know; as he’s keeping it close to his chest, so to speak.) Although it looks as though it was about not paying council tax and bankruptcy, where about 600 hundred people turned up at the Wirral court. So people have asked how is it that it seems to have gone all quite on his claim against the council tax and that his use of the “Cestui Que Vie Act 1666” does not say what he Roger claims.

What hasn’t been mentioned that I can see is if he has filed for bankruptcy, it the “Council tax” will all be quashed anyway. And then the usual follow on from that when someone has declared bankruptcy (Have two ex wives who went through bankruptcy, so I know what that entails) all part again of Usury again.

What is actually going on with the Jobcentre Plus (note the Plus addition), is filtering down unemployed people into a nursery type environment to de programme them, this is carried out under the Plus aspect of the DWP under the New Deal (today called Work Programme).

The environment is provided by a private corporation which is also a charity, (uncountable to taxpayer) which charges a shed load of money for what they call their 'induction', (forced signing of multiple contracts), and then a big running cost again to the taxpayer for the period in months leading to years, the corporate keep you in their grasp.

DWP refused to provide me with the costs under FOI, they said it was not in the public interest, they did provide the corporate providers.

Once they become drone like and child like, the initial corporate provider then shifts the once unemployed person (now a slave and not counted in unemployment figures), into the hands of one of their corporate buddies for 30 hours a week at no cost to the corporation, (buddies get slave). Yet the taxpayer still pays the initial provider the running cost, so win win the charitable corporations (who are one and come from John Adam Street Gang, [the corporate crown]), and lose the taxpayer and a poor British citizen becomes a slave under contract.

The John Adam Street Gang of course dictate to the City, thus removing Londinium as the core. I was wrong on this for a long time...

The taxpayer gets nothing from this, but is left in the position of liability and foots all the costs.

This corporate grouping have Ernst and Young at the helm with Manpower as the managerial level of this corporate scam playing out a game called State Capture.

Here are three short vids from an interview I recorded to show the insanity of the situation faced by the unemployed today :

Sarina Russo Job Access | Great Britain
www.sarinarusso.co.uk/ - Cached
Sarina Russo Job Access offers FREE employment and training services to employers. ... Sarina Russo Job Access has a history of producing the best quality ...
Work for Us
Contact Us
Jobseekers

About Us
Latest News
Employers

Quote:

Dragons' Den
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dragons' Den is a series of reality television programmes featuring entrepreneurs pitching their business ideas in order to secure investment finance from a panel of venture capitalists. The show originated in Japan as "Manê no Tora" (Tiger of Money, a pun on "Tiger of Malay", the nickname of a famous WWII general, Tomoyuki Yamashita). The format is owned by Sony Pictures Television International.

The Australian version of Dragons' Den was broadcast on the Seven Network and hosted by Andrew O'Keefe. Different from other versions, the host ran through the outline of the business with the contestant then negotiating with the Dragons for a deal. It was produced by Michael Horrock. The Australian Dragons were:

Serco Group plc
www.serco.com/ - Cached
Serco is an international service company that improves the quality and efficiency of essential services that matter to millions of people around the world.
Show stock quote for SRP
Careers
Contact
About Us
Investors

Continuing the Jobcentre information, and, on the back of the riot script to remove children to 'designated centres', Academies building and purchasing boarding capabilities, on top of those little beauties we get the Jobcentre Plus and associated corporate contractors via the DWP, A4e, the new deal (now called Work Programme), and some very big corporate monsters, we now face being whisked off to a concentration camp formerly known as boarding house to be trained in secret to become a better slave :

With the change to the Work Programme under the coalition government we have the ESF (European Social Fund) laying out 32 million which one would presume goes to the DWP and is then dished out to the scheme in all nine regions of England and Wales as set under EU protocol, yet given the long arms of A4e, and, into many arenas, one does wonder which of the two is the controlling hand, the DWP or A4e?

We can gain insight to the capacity of A4e from the following :

Quote

A4e is a leading public service provider, serving thousands of people across three continents – Europe, Australasia and Asia. A4e’s core mission is to improve people’s lives. We work in partnership with governments, public sector organisations, private sector companies and voluntary and community groups to deliver a range of front line public services, including employment and welfare, training and education, and money and legal advice.

And if that is not bad enough, we find Ofsted in the mix which has me wondering why such a question be asked of schools at all, and is the corporate requirement of an Ofsted inspection including this criteria affecting the result given by Ofsted?

you see it is not that everyone is an agent but most are acting the script of the agents..... north south divide you know

And under threat of loss of what little liberty they have and forced austerity and slavery. Paranoia? And with no morals being taught to people in society. But hey "Life" you were only just a while back trying to justify "tax" as a moral good, when it never has been and never will, which is why it was always unlawful as well as other forms of Usury.

Quote:

everybody is an agent

And if you/others/me can't work that morality out, where does the immorality come from in yours/others/mine thinking and likewise where would the true moral thoughts come from? Perhaps we are all agents of confused thinking and need to distinguish between genuinely good and bad.

Right over wrong is relative to the laws set fourth by humans in each respective system. Great Britain worked as a cohesive nation when it operated under the constitution.

Most people in this game of truth operate upon the scripts laid out by Intelligence agents, take Chris Coverdale and his assumptions it is all the fault of government, which everyone follows, be it come from him or not, everybody talks and writes in this way, ergo, all who do this follow the script of the agents of the corporate crown. That is all of you.

When it comes to the constitution today it is from the coronation oath of the current monarch, to which all oaths are sworn as the cause of our problems, the problems of the globe which operates under this twisted usurper of the British Constitutional realm, the commonwealth, and those in position of slave to the corporate crown in full secrecy and run by the secret societies....secret being the keyword, secret then being the evidence.

People who operate upon nothing but written evidence as it fits with their limitations as the only form of truth, are to say the least lacking in spirit. This has the knock on effect that their thoughts and thus works are as the secret world would have it, operating their life watching the shadows on the walls which cancels out intuition, it cancels out the heart, you operate entirely from the mind, the realm of the magician who builds spell and ritual to escape fear, aka, changing the title of this thread so one is not found to be wrong.

Fear satisfied.....

Below is the cause of our corporate problems :

The Coronation Oath

The basis for the coronation oath, which forms part of the coronation ceremony, is enshrined in statute in the Coronation Oath Act 1689.9 This Act required the King William and Queen Mary, as joint monarchs, to swear an oath during the coronation ceremony. The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Accession Declaration Act 1910 make a statutory requirement on the monarch to take the coronation oath.10
The text of the oath as set down in the 1689 Act is appended to this note. The text includes the promise that they would to the utmost of their power to –

maintaine the Laws of God the true profession of the Gospell and the Protestant reformed religion established by law [...] and [...] preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm and to the churches committed to their charge all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them or any of them
It is worth noting that the coronation oath has been modified without statutory authority. The present Queen swore a slightly different version of the oath to the 1689 version. It still included a promise to maintain the established Protestant religion in the United Kingdom. The text of the oath taken by Elizabeth II in 1953 is also appended to this note. 9 Coronation Oath Act 1688 (1 Will & Mar chap 6)

3
The legal obligations surrounding the oath are set out in Halsbury’s Laws:11

28. The Crown's duty towards the subject. The essential duties of the Crown towards the subject1 are now to be found expressed in the terms of the oaths which every monarch is required to take before or at the coronation. The duties imposed by the coronation oath2 are :

(1) to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the dominions etc belonging or pertaining to them according to their respective laws and customs3

(2) to cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all judgments, to the monarch's power;

(3) to maintain the laws of god, the true profession of the Gospel, and the protestant reformed religion established by law, to the utmost of the Sovereign's power;

(4) to maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and its doctrine, worship, discipline and government as by law established in England; and

(5) to preserve unto the bishops and clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them4.
The monarch is also bound by oath to preserve the Presbyterian Church in Scotland5.

1 See para 26 ante.
2 The coronation oath must be taken at the coronation under the Act. As to the statutory form of the oath and the alteration in the oath as at present administered see para 39 note 3 post. As to the citation of the Act of Settlement see para 35 note 3 post.

3 By the Act of Settlement s 4, it is declared that 'whereas the laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof and all the kings and queens who shall ascend the throne of this realm ought to administer the government of the same according to the said laws and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same...the same are....ratified and confirmed accordingly. As to the Crown's duty to exercise the prerogative in conformity to law see para 368 post.

4 The duties as set out above are based on the oath in the Form and Order of Service in the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, 1953. These duties incorporate the duties set out in the coronation oath enacted in the Coronation Oath Act 1688 s 3.

5 Union with Scotland Act 1706 art XXV (embodying art XXV of the Treaty Union) ss 2-5; and see paras 51-66 post. This oath is taken before the coronation; see para 39 note 4 post. As to the accession declaration see para 39 post.

4
39. Statutory conditions of tenure. The descent of the Crown in the present line of succession is subject to certain statutory conditions as follows:

(1) a person who is a Roman Catholic or marries a Roman Catholic1, is excluded from inheriting, possessing or enjoying the Crown, and in such case the people are absolved of their allegiance, and the Crown is to descend to such person or persons, being protestants, as would have inherited it in case the person so reconciled etc were dead2;

(2) every person inheriting the Crown must take the coronation oath in the form provided by statute3;

(3) every king or queen must make, subscribe and repeat, sitting on the throne in the House of Lords, either on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament after the accession, or at the coronation, whichever shall first happen, a declaration that he or she is a faithful protestant, and will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the protestant succession to the throne, uphold and maintain those enactments to the best of his or her powers according to law4;

(4) any person coming into possession of the Crown must join in communion with the Church of England5; and

(5) it is also provided as a fundamental term of the union of England with Scotland that every person who succeeds to the Crown must take and subscribe the oaths for the preservation of the Established Church in England and the Presbyterian Church in Scotland6.

1 The terms of the Act of Settlement are ‘any person who shall be reconciled to, or hold communion with, the see or Church of Rome, or profess the popish religion, or marry a papist': s 2. As to the citation of the Act of Settlement see para 35 note 3 ante.

2 This is the joint effect of the Act of Settlement s 2, and the Bill of Rights, s1. As to the history and citation of the Bill of Rights see para 35 note 3 ante.

3 Act of Settlement s 2. The form of the oath is provided by the Coronation Oath Act 1688 s 3, and must be by the Archbishop of Canterbury or York, or any other bishop of the realm appointed by the monarch for that purpose, in the presence of all persons attending, assisting or otherwise present at the coronation s 4. The form of the oath as at present administered differs from that provided by the Act owing to the disestablishment of the Irish Church (by the Irish Church Act 1869), and to the provisions of the Union with Scotland Act 1706 art XXV. As to the oath for the preservation of the Established Church of England see the text and note 6 infra. For the form of oath as administered to Her present Majesty see para 28 ante.

4 Bill of Rights s 1; Act of Settlement s 2; Accession Declaration Act 1910. The declaration was made by King George V at the opening of Parliament, and therefore the necessity for making it at the coronation did not arise:7 HL Official Report (5th series) col 4. The same was true in the case of Elizabeth II. King George VI made the declaration during the coronation service: see Supplement to the London Gazette, 10 November 1937, p 7054. For the purposes of any enactment requiring an oath or declaration to be taken, made or subscribed by the monarch on or after the accession, the date on which the monarch attains the age of 18 years is deemed to be the date of the accession: Regency Act 1937 s 1(2). However, it should be noted that the monarch has no minority, and his exercise of the prerogative is valid even if he has not attained 18 (see 5
Co Litt 43a, b; 2 Co Inst, proem, 3; 1 BI Com (14th Edn) 248), although the Regency Acts (see para 40 post) mean that the prerogative is exercise in the monarch's name while the monarch is under 18. By 28 Hen 8 c 27 (Succession to the Crown) (1536), power was given to future monarchs to revoke all enactments made by Parliament whilst they should be under the age of 24. This enactment was repealed temporarily by Edw 6 c 11 (Repeal of 28 Hen 8 c 17) (1547), and both these statutes were determined and annulled by 24 Geo 2 c 24 (Minority of Successor to Crown) (1750), s 23 (repealed).

5 Act of Settlement s 3.
6 See paras 51, 53 post. The oath for the preservation of the Established Church of England is now administered as part of the coronation oath: see text and note 4 supra. The oath for the preservation of the Presbyterian Church was taken by Queen Elizabeth II at a meeting of the Privy Council held immediately after her accession, the instrument being subscribed in duplicate, and one part sent to the Court of Session to be recorded in the Books of Sederunt, and afterwards to be lodged in the Public Register of Scotland, the other part remaining among the records of the Council to be entered in the Council book: see the London Gazette Extraordinary, 8 February 1952, p 839; London Gazette, 12 February 1952, p 861.

Edward Ratcliff, The Coronation Service of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, SPCK, 1953

6
Appendix A: Text of the Oath as set down in the Coronation Oath Act 168812

3. Form of oath and administration thereof
Will you solemnely promise and sweare to governe the people of this kingdome of England and the dominions thereto belonging according to the statutes in Parlyament agreed on and the laws and customs of the same?

The King and Queene shall say,

I solemnly promise soe to doe.

Arch bishop or bishop,
Will you to your power cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all your judgements.

King and Queene,
I will.

Arch bishop or bishop
Will you to the utmost of your power maintaine the laws of God the true profession of the Gospell and the Protestant reformed religion established by law? And will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realme and to the churches committed to their charge all such rights and priviledges as by law doe or shall appertaine unto them or any of them.
King and Queene.
All this I promise to doe.

After this the King and Queene laying his and her hand upon the Holy Gospells, shall say,

King and Queene.
The things which I have here before promised I will performe and keepe Soe help me God.

7
Appendix B: Text of the oath taken by Elizabeth II in 195313
The Queen having returned to her Chair, (her Majesty having already on Tuesday, the 4th day of November, 1 9 5 2, in the presence of the two Houses of Parliament, made and signed the Declaration prescribed by Act of Parliament), the Archbishop standing before her shall administer the Coronation Oath, first asking the Queen,

Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?
And the Queen answering,
I am willing.

The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and the Queen, having a book in her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows:
Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

Queen. I Will.

Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen. All this I promise to do.

Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premises: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Archbishop (The Bible to be brought) and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and be brought saying these words:

The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.

Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath. And a Silver Standish

Queen having thus taken her Oath shall return again to her Chair, and the Bible shall be delivered to the Dean of Westminster.

This monarch is no Christian, she is Evangelical Zionist

_________________KEEP IT REAL

Last edited by Life on Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:13 pm; edited 2 times in total

Here is a major lodge-head who was not happy about things in his club.

Any order run by someone (or something) else is clearly a dis-order, can we agree? It is an un-order, a non-order, someone-else's-order, and definitely not your orderly order. Not something you can proudly show to your kids, much less to your fellow lodge people. In three letters, the Duke of Brunswick was saying WTF. Here is what he said:

In 1794 the Duke of Brunswick, the Grand Master of German Freemasonry wrote a letter to his brethren recommending the dissolution of the entire organization, due to the fact that it had been infiltrated and was being manipulated by unseen hands. Do not miss his last phrase.

"I have been convinced that we, as an Order, have come under the power of some very evil occult Order, profoundly versed in science, both occult and otherwise, though not infallible, their methods being black magic, that is to say, electromagnetic power, hypnotism, and powerful suggestion. We are convinced that the Order is being controlled by some Sun Order, after the nature of the Illuminati, if not by that Order itself. We see our edifice ... crumbling and covering the ground with ruins, we see the destruction that our hands no longer arrest ... a great sect arose, which taking for its motto the good and the happiness of man, worked in the darkness of the conspiracy to make the happiness of humanity a prey for itself.

This sect is known to everyone, its brothers are known no less than its name. It is they who have undermined the foundations of the Order to the point of complete overthrow; it is by them that all humanity has been poisoned and led astray for several generations ... They began by casting odium on religion ... Their masters had nothing less in view than the thrones of the earth, and the governments of the nations was to be directed by their nocturnal clubs ... the misuse of our order ... has produced all the political and moral troubles with which the world is filled today ... we must from this moment dissolve the whole Order"

So the Duke, as he wanted to be called, essentially confirms that Freemasonry was successfully infiltrated and has been taken over since at least the Council of Wilhelmsbad, Germany, in 1780. An understanding was finally reached between the Masons and the Illuminati, and on December 20, 1781, a combined Order was proposed which would add to the Illuminati organization the first three degrees of Masonry. It wasn't until the Congress of Wilhelmsbad from July 16th to August 29th, 1781 (which was attended by Masons, Martinistes, and representatives from other secret organizations from Europe, America and Asia) that the alliance was official. Those at the meeting were put under oath not to reveal anything. Comte de Virieu, a Mason from the Martiniste lodge at Lyons, upon his return home when questioned about the Congress said:

"I will not confide [the details] to you. I can only tell you that all this is very much more serious than you think. The conspiracy which is being woven is so well thought out, that it will be, so to speak, impossible for the Monarchy and the Church to escape it."

And of course 18 years earlier Freemasonry suffered this chap and his perfected pyramidal system :

The founder of the Illuminati, or let's call him the original frontman, Adam Weishaupt, a "marrano", who wrote in his journal that Freemasonry was an excellent host for this parasite:

"The great strength of our Order lies in its concealment; let it never appear in any place in its own name, but always covered by another name, and another occupation. None is fitter than the three lower degrees of Free Masonry; the public is accustomed to it, expects little from it, and therefore takes little notice of it. Next to this, the form of a learned or literary society is best suited to our purpose, and had Free Masonry not existed, this cover would have been employed; and it may be much more than a cover, it may be a powerful engine in our hands. By establishing reading societies, and subscription libraries, and taking these under our direction, and supplying them through our labors, we may turn the public mind which way we will. In like manner we must try to obtain an influence in the military academies (this may be of mighty consequence) the printing-houses, booksellers' shops, chapters, and in short in all offices which have any effect, either in forming, or in managing, or even in directing the mind of man: painting and engraving are highly worth our care."

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum